法華義疏 7.115

7.115

「父遙見子」下，第二、合明息化。就文為二：初、正明息化；二、明息化稱機。初文又二：前、念欲息化；二、正息化。就初又二：前、開兩章門；次、釋兩章門。開兩章門者，前開息大章門，次標授小章門。所言「遙見」者，既不受大化，見彼小機去理遙遠，故名遙見。念欲息化，如「語使言」，大乘理不容小機，為「不須此人」，未可以大化之，為「勿強將來」。「以冷水灑面令得醒悟」者，第二、標授小章門也。即是第六冷水灑面譬。初成道時既未堪授大化，但有人天小機，故為說人天乘也。人天人機喻之如面，五戒十善能釋迷解滯稱彼根情，譬之冷水也。「莫復與語」者，不可說大也。「所以者何」者，雙釋二門也。「父知其子志意下劣」者，此明有小機，釋上授小也。「自知豪貴為子所難」者，明大乘尊極，釋上息大化也。「審知是子」者，知其過去曾發大心，故云審知是子。「而以方便不語他人云是我子」者，此是釋疑故來也。既實是子，何不語使云是我子，令使往捉耶？即詺使為他人，猶是上傍人也。故今釋云：雖云審知是子，而以方便不得語使云是我子。此意明初成道時，教門中不得說二乘人本是佛子，不說之意隱於實說，即是方便也。前遣使喚子不得，謂不得以《華嚴》頓教化二乘人。今審知是子，不語他人云是我子，即是不得漸說《法華》中一乘以化窮子也。

From "The father, seeing his son from afar" downwards is the second [section], which collectively explains the cessation of teaching. Within the text there are two parts: first, directly explaining the cessation of teaching; second, explaining that ceasing the teaching matches the capacities. The first text also has two parts: first, the intention desiring to cease the teaching; second, directly ceasing the teaching. The first also has two parts: first, setting forth two topics; next, explaining the two topics. As for setting forth the two topics, the first sets forth the topic of ceasing the Mahāyāna, and the next indicates the topic of conferring the Hīnayāna. As for the words "seeing from afar," since [the son] did not accept the great conversion, and [the father] saw that his inferior capacity was far removed from the truth, it is called "seeing from afar." Desiring to cease the teaching is shown in "saying to the messenger." That the Mahāyāna principle cannot accommodate an inferior capacity is "there is no need for this man." That it is not yet permissible to convert him with the Mahāyāna is "do not forcefully bring him." "Sprinkling his face with cold water to bring him to awareness" is the second, indicating the topic of conferring the Hīnayāna. This is the sixth parable, that of sprinkling the face with cold water. When [the Buddha] first attained enlightenment, since [the son] was not yet capable of receiving the great conversion and had only the small capacity for the human and heavenly realms, he therefore preached the human and heavenly vehicles to him. The capacity of human and heavenly beings is compared to the face; the five precepts and ten wholesome deeds, being able to dispel confusion, untie stagnation, and suit their root inclinations, are compared to cold water. "Do not speak with him again" means that one must not speak of the Mahāyāna. "Why is this?" explains both topics together. "The father knew his son's ambitions were low and base" explains that he had an inferior capacity, explaining the aforementioned conferral of the Hīnayāna. "Knowing of himself that his noble eminence was daunting to his son" explains that the Mahāyāna is supreme and exalted, explaining the aforementioned cessation of the Mahāyāna conversion. "Fully knowing that this was his son" means knowing that he had in the past generated the great aspiration; hence it says "fully knowing that this was his son." "Yet using upāya, he did not tell others, saying, 'This is my son'" comes forth to resolve a doubt. Since he is truly his son, why did he not tell the messenger, "This is my son," and have the messenger go and seize him? That is, the messenger is termed "others," still referring to the aforementioned "attendants." Thus it is now explained: although it says he fully knew this was his son, yet through upāya he could not tell the messenger, "This is my son." The meaning here is that when [the Buddha] first attained enlightenment, within the portal of teaching he could not declare that the persons of the two vehicles were originally Buddha-sons; the intention of not declaring it concealed the real teaching, which is precisely upāya. Previously, sending a messenger to call the son and failing meant that he could not use the sudden teaching of the Avataṃsaka to convert the persons of the two vehicles. Now, fully knowing that this was his son yet not telling others "This is my son" means that he could not yet gradually preach the ekayāna in the Lotus Sūtra to convert the destitute son.